I'm currently reading an interesting book, linked above, which contains as it's main thesis the idea that a mostly vegan diet chock full of veggies and as low as possible in animal fat or especially protein is the healthiest one we can consume.

So far at about 100 pages I've learned about the author's initial feelings that protein is a healthy, animal protein is best, that a traditional US farmer's diet is key, that most nutritional problems are related to animal protein deficits, and explorations in nutrition science that shook his world views.

First, he learned that protein, and in particular protein from animals, is a major cancer promoter in the case of aflatoxin and hepatitis virus. Vegetable protein did not have this effect; the toxin dose could be overcome by reducing animal protein intake. The numbers were pretty impressive but were based on animal research and unusual toxin doses. I am now reading, however, parts of the "meat" of the book which centers on the China Study, which is an enormous epidemiologic study comparing detailed diet data to health outcomes in China, which apparently is by far the best epi study on nutrition ever done. Here we learn that hepatitis B drives a lot of liver cancer but low animal protein intake seriously attenuates any extra risk. I've also read his theories on animal protein and breast cancer, and these pertain largely to the idea that high animal protein diets accelerate menarche and delay menopause, exposing women to higher lifetime estrogens which drive breast cancer. He shows a convincing Western chart showing a clear relationship of fat intake to breast cancer, then turns it on its head by showing NO relation of vegetable fats to breast cancer--it's all animal conveyed risk. I am curious to see if the author has an good explanation coming, because in my mind protein = amino acids which are the same regardless of source once digested. What's the mechanism, if not just lower overall protein intake? Just association with less healthy fats in meat? Or lower effective (complete) protein intake because of insufficiently matched ratios of amino acid intake to amino acid needs?

Some other interesting tidbits include the observation that the Chinese consume a lot more calories than us but don't have issues with calorie retention (obesity) until they adopt our diets. The author promotes the concept of a high carb diet, but the the faddist one from the 70s or 80s with tons of processed carbs--he means mostly veggies. Of import, I had taken it for granted that the American experiment with low fat diets was a failure--we had a low fat craze for decades and we got fat thus carbs = bad. He points out that during that time, we actually increased our fat intake 13 pounds per person per year! We reduced our percent calories from fat but gorged on everything else. Thus, we haven't tried a high carb diet, and certainly not a high carb diet that's that way because of whole grains and vegetables.

He also believes most diet studies are useless because they look at subtle ranges of intakes among Americans or Westerners (it's like asking if smoking 95 cigarettes a day is better than smoking 100) and that single nutrient studies are stupid because things work in concert and you derive benefit from all the other stuff in the veggies from fiber to minerals to other nutrients.

There are also interesting data on lipids in there, such that the low end of the american scale was the high end of the chinese scale--70-170! These are cholesterol values we used to teach were dangerous, but he finds no evidence of the risk for the Chinese, yet those with the lower cholesterol following the vegetable diet have no appreciable heart disease. So far he's described going from a high animal product diet to essentially a vegan one for all these reasons.

I'm sure some readers are wondering if veganism is compatible with competitive athletics and I am curious myself. Certainly I've been convinced we take in far more protein than we need for even vigorous athletics and have decided to dial my intake way down--at least till I finish the book I figure I can't hurt myself eating plates of veggies, right?

I have always told people that you can't go wrong with veggies and to a lesser extent fruits, and that we should ditch the processed foods completely. I may have to revise my feelings about animal intake and really slash mine. I don't know what I'm going to do without my chicken, fish, and skim milk though :/ I'm curious to see what others would do if convinced animal intake was correlated clearly with poor health outcomes, and to see if anyone else feels like tackling the book, which is an easy read.

Note: there's too much content to list and justify it all, even part way through the book. As it's written for the public, I have some issues with the presentation ("cholesterol"? do you mean HDL or LDL or total or what?? What are the exact p values and stats?). But that makes it accessible and it is extensively referenced, as well as written without an ax to grind. The guy is pro animal research, not a PETA nut, and he used to be a determined carnivore till confronted with his data. I will have to find out more about why there aren't more journal references rather than books generated by the China Study.

I read The China Study a number of years ago and attempted at one point to follow the advice... strictly. I went to a vegan diet heavy on veggies with some fruit and getting protein from those sources. I ate a lot of Indian vegan foods. The spices started to bother me after a bit, but I just changed what I was eating and continued the premise. My wife became anemic and I started having issues too. Mainly energy related for both of us... but we persevered. Finally we had to start adding back some of the animal proteins. We still maintain a majority vegetarian diet (with fruit) and I, personally only drink water (OK... I still have scotch every once in awhile. ) But, when I saw this, after basically figuring it out ourselves (me, my wife & our MD), it kind of makes sense to "listen to what your body's telling you".

(Sorry for posting basically the whole thing - it's kind of long -, but it's free online and I thought this would make it easier for folks to read it.)

There are also articles out there that discuss the fact that the meat & milk consumed in the U.S. are different from the meat & milk consumed in other parts of the world... mainly in the fact that things are far more processed in the U.S. and (the argument goes) if people in the U.S. were to go to raw milk and grass-fed, organically-raised meats or wild game, instead of the meats from large commercial farms, then the problems with eating animal proteins would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. (Personally, I am allergic to dairy products... evidently regardless of the source, so I don't worry about that. But we've started looking at getting other animal products from local, organic, grass-fed farms.... rather expensive, but we don't really eat that much anyway.)

I have sought to apply science to improve my health, and that of others, for over forty years. The topic so intrigued me that I went to medical school to increase my understanding of the way the body works.

I have learned many things along this health journey. Clearly one of the major lessons is that there is enormous controversy when it comes to understanding what the human body was designed to thrive on.

Fortunately, as a practicing physician I have had the distinct advantage of having the opportunity to treat over 25,000 patients who were willing to implement suggestions I made to improve their health. Over the years, I certainly have made my share of mistakes, and some people did not improve after implementing what I thought was very solid advice.

Interestingly, most of my initial failures were related to encouraging many thousands of patients to eat too many vegetables in relation to fats and animal protein.

This may sound shocking to some, and staunch vegetarians, or vegans, might wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that you could possibly eat too many vegetables. In fact, many have absorbed Dr. T. Colin Campbell’s writing’s on this topic, particularly his book The China Study, which makes a radical case against the wisdom of eating animal protein at all, by linking protein to all manner of ill health, including cancer.

Is Eating Meat Harmful, Like Popular Pro-Vegan Book Proclaims?

Many who hold strict vegetarian views) still hold up The China Study as the authoritative "proof" that eating meat was harmful.

This work flies in the face of many nutritionally oriented physicians, like myself, who have collectively treated tens of thousands of patients and found that forcing an animal-free protein diet on everyone will invariably cause harm and suffering in many whose biochemically and genetically determined nutritional type requires large amounts of fat and protein.

Since this book is widely trusted and used to defend a no animal protein position I thought it was important to provide my views on why I believe this work has some fundamental flaws.

Another nutritional physician who has taken a hard look at Dr. Campbell’s book, and the studies that form the basis of his conclusions, is Dr. Michael R. Eades, M.D.

Dr. Eades has been in full-time practice of nutritional and metabolic medicine since 1986, and like myself, has treated tens of thousands of patients. Interestingly, Campbell, on the other hand, is not a practicing physician and has no real-world experience to support the veracity of his nutritional recommendations for the population at large.

Major Reason Why the China Study is Fatally Flawed

The very title of the book is inaccurate. It is NOT a study but a comprehensive set of observations. While this approach can be valuable, it can never prove his assertion that animal protein should be avoided, as he never TESTED that theory on real live patients... The data from Dr. Campbell’s China study was first published in the tome Diet, Life-Style and Mortality in China. It contains several thousands of statistical correlations, which Campbell insists show that animal protein intake is convincingly associated with prevalence of cancer.

However, it’s important to realize two things:

1. The China study was an observational study. Correlations deduced from an observational study do not – in fact, cannot -- prove causation. As Dr. Eade points out, all you can really do with data from an observational study is to form a hypothesis, which must then be tested in randomized, controlled trials, to ferret out the truth about whether or not x actually causes y. 2. In many cases, the data (presented in arduous detail in the book Diet, Life-Style and Mortality in China) do not show statistically significant correlations between animal protein consumption and disease such as cancer at all. On the contrary. It would seem that sugar and carbohydrates are correlated with cancer – not animal protein. In addition, the data indicate that fat is negatively correlated with cancer mortality, which again contradicts the claim that meat is harmful.

For more information, I highly recommend reading through Dr. Eade’s critique of The China Study.

You can also review another critique of the China Study by Science Based medicine. It is particularly interesting because the reviewer was initially a strong supporter of the ":study": until faced with the facts.http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6092

Two Physicians’ Experiences with Using Vegetarian Diets for Everyone

After finishing my family practice residency in 1985 I read the book Fit for Life. The book made some very compelling arguments encouraging the consumption of raw fruits and vegetables. So I started its recommendations and had fruit for breakfast. After a few weeks I tested my blood work and was shocked to find my fasting triglycerides were nearly 3,000. That is not a typo. Nearly three thousand...This was surprising because they had never been over 100 in the past.

Clearly this diet was killing me and I am convinced I would have died long ago had I remained on it. I now realize that this approach probably helps some, but was a disaster for me personally.

Dr. Eades is another nutritional physician. He and I have never met and do not personally know each other.

However, we both started our medical practices about the same time and were both passionate about helping people with nutritional interventions and helping them with alternatives to drugs and surgery.

We had no predisposition to the outcome and were impartial observers to the results of our nutritional interventions. We were both busy clinicians and never had the luxury to take months out of our lives to publish our observations in the medical literature. Nevertheless the lack of publications does not make the observations any less valid.

Interestingly we both observed the same results, namely that large numbers of sick people failed to improve when they implemented vegetarian or vegan diets.

This shocked us as we were compelled by many of the arguments that Campbell makes and believed that all our patients should have improved on this regimen. Initially I questioned their compliance and believed many of them were “cheating.” But after this started happening to more and more people, it became clear my approach was flawed.

Many of these patients significantly worsened and nearly died. Many even left our practices because they lost faith in our ability to use diet as a tool to help them regain their health. What we both realized after these well-intentioned efforts is that . . .

There is No Perfect Diet that Works for Everyone

Most of the confusion in this debate results from this reality. Vegetarian diets described by Campbell do work for large numbers of people. From my observations, perhaps about one third of the population would benefit from it. These people thrive on these foods and have spectacular health. The problem is that there is an equally large, or even larger, population whose health is devastated by restricting animal protein and fats.

About ten years ago I was exposed to concepts that helped me understand this shocking observation. I realized that there is an enormous level of biochemical and genetic individuality that essentially guarantees that there is no perfect food plan that will work for everyone.

What I gradually came to appreciate is that we are all uniquely designed and require customized plans.

I eventually adopted a program called Nutritional Typing, which is a central part of my health plan and is available for free on my site.

This plan categorizes people into three different groups:

* Protein: High amounts of healthy fats and protein and lower amounts of vegetables * Carb: High amounts of vegetables and lower amounts of protein and fat * Mixed: Somewhere between the above options

The population is divided equally between the groups, with about one third of the population of the US in each group.

If you go to certain countries however, you will find high percentages in one group, but the US is a wide mixture and has a widespread heterogeneity.

Nutritional Typing Produced Dramatic Improvement

Once I began implementing Nutritional Typing in my practice I noticed a remarkable decrease in those that did not respond favorably to dietary changes. Nearly everyone seemed to notice improvement, and for many it was quite dramatic.

One of the underlying principles of the program is to "Listen to Your Body" and adjust your foods based on how you feel mentally and physically after consuming them. Many who claim to have tried nutritional typing and report feeling worse, have clearly missed this most essential point.

If, after a meal, you feel sluggish, tired, nauseous, or depressed, your meal was not ideal. If you are indeed following the nutritional typing program, this will be a giant clue that you need to modify your diet.

You make a great mistake if you simply take the test once and strictly follow the food choices recommended for that type – you must continuously check in with yourself and keep modifying your food choices until you find the right balance of fats, healthy carbs and protein for you.

Nutritional typing is a way to determine what YOUR customized diet is, and it is not even a one-size-fits-all within each nutritional grouping. If you take nutritional typing seriously, its guidelines will help you modify your food intake until you find the right balance.

That said, some of the most dramatic improvements I saw were from individuals who were protein types but were eating mostly carbs, in the way of vegetables. It was very common for these people to have strong ethical positions about refusing to eat animal products.

I would never ask someone to eat animal foods if they had spiritual convictions against doing so. However, many in this category were just confused about this issue – thinking this is what was healthiest for their body. They couldn't understand why they felt so sick and had so many health problems. Once we were able to clear up that confusion, and experiment with the program, the result was typically quite impressive.

Don’t Listen to Me or ANYONE Else About What You Should Eat

It is sad to see that many staunch vegans and vegetarians fail to even acknowledge that anyone is designed to have animal protein. Unfortunately they are able to convince many with seemingly compelling information like Campbell’s China Study and as a result, many people continue to suffer from not including vital nutrients in their diet -- nutrients they were designed to eat.

Ultimately, if you are sincerely honest and seek to understand what diet is best for you, it is my recommendation to abandon any previously held convictions you might have about diet and listen to your body.

Let your body tell you what foods you were designed to eat. Don’t listen to me or Dr. Eades or a researcher like Campbell who has never treated patients. Just listen to your own body.

You can experiment for yourself and observe your reactions, but if you would like a systemized way to approach this and record your results so you can reach your own independent conclusions about what you were designed to eat, then I would encourage you to take the FREE Nutritional Typing Test.

Should Meat Be Avoided Because of the Cholesterol Issue?

Many, if not most, conventional physicians still maintain the position that cholesterol is harmful and should be avoided. However, this misconception has been carefully debunked in more recent years. Alas, the conventional system is not known for its speed to embrace corrective action even when a fallacy has been clearly revealed.

I won't repeat all the arguments here but if you are interested in getting a more in-depth review, please read my most recent cholesterol report.

The truth is, many of the health problems attributed to fat and cholesterol are in fact caused by SUGAR, not fat! If you do not understand this vital concept, you will likely continue to sabotage your health – avoiding health promoting foods, and substituting them with some of the most health-harming…

Is Vegetarianism Right for You?

I have long advocated consuming plenty of fresh, organic, locally grown raw vegetables, but it's important to understand that different ratios are appropriate for depending on your nutritional type.

This means that some people will thrive on very large amounts of vegetables and very little animal protein. For others, this ratio would spell disaster for their health. Again, it's highly individual. The people who fare the worst on a vegetarian diet are those who are naturally protein types, as they're depriving their bodies of essential fuel, determined by their genetic and biochemical makeup.

Some of my views on eating animal protein were directly influenced by the work of Dr. Weston Price but although his contribution was great, since then countless peer-reviewed studies have been published that support these views.

It's also worth mentioning that I have no competing commercial interests that might sway me from providing the most accurate, health-promoting information I possibly can share on this or any other health related subject. As you may know already, my business model does not allow outside advertisers.

The only commercial items sold on my site are ones that I firmly believe in and most of which I personally use – and that includes grass-fed, organically-and humanely (non-factory farmed) raised meats and wild fish providers whose food products I have tested for purity by an independent lab prior to endorsing them.

But to recap: a largely vegetarian diet may be appropriate for some, but to promote it as the only, or even the best, way to improve health is foolhardy at best, because some two-thirds of people simply cannot and will not thrive on a meatless diet.

What About the Other Animal Protein: Milk… Is it Good or Bad?

Another important distinction that must be taken into account when discussing animal protein sources is the difference between raw and pasteurized dairy. When you heat a protein to the temperature required to achieve pasteurization you denature the tertiary and quaternary structure of the protein making it essentially a new molecule.

Additionally, any time you see studies where casein is given to animals and adverse health effects ensue, there's really little cause for surprise.

Why?

Because any time you process foods you damage them, and you can therefore experience a variety of adverse health effects when you consume them. This should not be misconstrued as being a reflection of the same food in its raw and/or unadulterated state!

My recommendation to everyone is to try cheeses made from raw milk and compare them to cheeses made from pasteurized milk. I'm willing to bet that most of you would agree the taste of raw cheese is far superior. This is so well known, no self-respecting cheesemaker would ever choose pasteurized milk over raw when making cheese, because the properties are entirely different – it's basically damaged goods.

For those who claim there's no significant health benefits of raw over pasteurized, the inherent differences in flavor and consistency between raw and processed cheeses alone will clue you in on the fact that there ARE significant differences between the two types of milk – otherwise the cheeses would also be identical, wouldn't they?

Another common misconception many people have is that you should avoid milk because no other animal in nature consumes it after they're weaned. While this may be logistically true, observation will show you that most animals will eagerly and readily consume raw milk when given the opportunity.

Few would argue with the fact that human breast milk is probably the ideal and most perfect food designed for human infants -- a truly custom-made whole food for a baby -- yet virtually no adult is able to consume this as a source of nutrition for logistical unavailability.

However, throughout history, ancient people across the world have continued drinking similar raw milk from cows, sheep and goats, well past being weaned from their mother's breast.

Final Recommendation

This is obviously a very sensitive issue for many. It has been my experience that many make choices to eat certain foods based on philosophical or intellectual reasons. While I believe that should always be an important part of the process, I believe it is equally important to listen to the important feedback that your body provides you when you consume a certain diet.

If your current diet allows you to function at the highest level of energy and fitness and you rarely feel hungry or crave sweets that is a fairly good sign that you are eating food appropriate for your nutritional type.

However if you are struggling with health challenges and have rigidly adhered to a diet that severely limits or avoids animal protein, because you believe you should or you are choosing it for ethical reasons then I would encourage you to consider changing your diet to include some animal proteins.

Just be honest with yourself and objectively evaluate your body's response. Your body is the most awesome instrument to make this assessment. Ultimately it is the best resource and far superior to anything you read on the Internet or in any published study.

Please feel free to use our free Nutritional Typing Test as tool to help you explore what foods you were designed to eat.

So my final words are to trust the body God gave you to tell you the truth.

Of COURSE the China Study is a study. He means it's not a clinical trial. The author explains this in detail. Yes, he didn't randomize people to different diets and see the results. You can't. The only nutrition studies we get that way are a few hundred people in size, relatively brief, and studying minimally different diets relative to cross cultural studies. This is the reason the whole field of nutrition is imprecise, not the reason the China Study is a worse part of it.

"In many cases, the data (presented in arduous detail in the book Diet, Life-Style and Mortality in China) do not show statistically significant correlations between animal protein consumption and disease such as cancer at all. On the contrary. It would seem that sugar and carbohydrates are correlated with cancer – not animal protein. In addition, the data indicate that fat is negatively correlated with cancer mortality, which again contradicts the claim that meat is harmful."

I don't follow this. It's not true. In the case of breast cancer, there is a very clear association between fat intake and mortality. This author has it backwards. By the way, this wasn't from the book, it's separate data. It's worth pointing out that vegetable fat lacks this association. So, as I explained in my post, I was left wondering if it's animal protein or animal fats, which I work hard to avoid. But there are a number of animal studies showing that PROTEIN was the clear cancer promoter, not fat.

I also really do not believe this guy's triglycerides went to 3000 on a "fruit for breakfast" diet.

"Interestingly we both observed the same results, namely that large numbers of sick people failed to improve when they implemented vegetarian or vegan diets."

Well yes, of course. Diet doesn't fix everything, including established disease. Why would it? People worsen on a western diet too. He's going to trash the largest nutritional study in the world and offer these anecdotes to replace it?

"Many of these patients significantly worsened and nearly died. Many even left our practices because they lost faith in our ability to use diet as a tool to help them regain their health."

Ok first, very few Americans adopt diets like those in the book or the Ornish diet, etc. And if he got all his patients on them and had 25,000, well, that's a miracle. And some worsened and nearly died? The nature of heart disease is that most of the deaths are sudden. Heart attack. V -tach. Dead. No one died? Some SHOULD have, just statistically. Got worse in what way? From what illness? I'm finding this section very sketch.

"From my observations, perhaps about one third of the population would benefit from it. These people thrive on these foods and have spectacular health. The problem is that there is an equally large, or even larger, population whose health is devastated by restricting animal protein and fats."

Baloney. This isn't what we find in vegetarian cultures and poor locales where meat is scarce and de facto restricted. 2/3 of people don't just have devastated health. Rather, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and cancer etc are all much less common across the board. Some people need unrestricted access to animal fats? That's just ludicrous. We're genetically "diverse"--and 99% the same as a chimp. Everyone's lipase works on all triglycerides and the result is free fatty acid to use as energy or store. Even very different fats (saturated, trans, unsaturated, short chain) are well known to be digestible by basically everyone.

As for raw vs pasteurized milk--everyone is welcome to get food borne illness if they want. I'm sticking with modern sanitation myself. Until someone dmeonstrates there is some meaningful change in the milk--his claim is that it's denatured, which is not quite right. You can scald pasteurized milk--is it partial? I don't care, because once it's ingested it's denatured by your acid and then chopped up for absorption. Plus, you denature all the meat you cook. That's why you cook it. Improves availability of nutrients and it's safer.

It's worth pointing out there is not a single reference for any of his claims and he apparently hasn't published any of this groundbreaking work.

I really don't have a "horse in this race". I don't care what others eat because it doesn't really bear on what we do/eat. I was just offering an alternative view along with some experience. As I wrote above, I read The China Study a number of years ago and reacted by working my way to following the book's dietary suggestions. In some respects, things went pretty well, in others... not so well. We found that we needed a certain amount of good animal protein. But that's just us. My point is that everyone is different. I have a very good friend who is vegetarian from India. That has worked wonderfully for him. However, his wife (also from India) is not vegetarian. She eats fish and chicken. (His children are allowed to chose their diet and sometimes they will eat what Mommy has and sometimes they will eat what Daddy has... ) Both He and his wife are in excellent health.

I think that this is one of those things where being health conscious is something which the vegan/vegetarian folks tend to do more than the masses. Since the masses eat meat (even if it's some fast-food junk with little thought beyond "it's quick and tastes good") and that is what is being compared, then perhaps there is more to it than meat vs no meat. I've read the arguments for and against "raw" milk... as I said before, I don't do dairy products and it is a very limited part of my families diet. They do some dairy, but since I use almond "milk", that's what they go for. The little one and wife get plenty of calcium & vitamin D, so it's not an issue. Again, as I said before, we followed the China Study diet strictly for quite awhile and were starting to feel worse and worse. We still eat a mainly vegetable diet (with fruits), but the addition of some animal proteins has been working for us. Sooooo... my point still is to "listen to what your body is telling you" meaning if you don't feel good with what you're doing, take a look at what you're doing (whether it's what you eat or other life-style factors) and change it. Maybe that doesn't help... try something else. There are a lot of healthy alternatives for people to try. (operative term being "healthy"... and there are plenty of things to show that diet done right is better for you than Mc-franken-food!)

Of course I certainly don't have a problem with the idea of individual diet choice or to listening to one's body. I think, however, that this intuitively appealing idea has been exploited by the above author who is selling things. I am probably going to keep eating lean chicken and fish and some egg white as part of my diet but make a more concerted effort to eliminate other junk from my diet and always ensure a vegetable is the focus.

But I wonder what was missing from your life on the China Study's recommended diet. Were you getting protein malnourished? If so were you having balanced protein intake (grains and legumes) to deal with this? Even if not, a small amount of animal protein should correct the deficit. This can come from basically fatless or healthy fat containing foods (there's some ahi at home awaiting a searing and a bed of veggies). Were you getting enough filling foods? Eating broccoli all day isn't going to cut it for most of us and a good dose of olive oil, nuts, or peanut butter or avocado may be required to cut hunger. Iron can be an issue on vegan diets, although most grains are fortified now and beans and other things can pick up most of the slack. Some women get anemic from blood loss no matter what they eat and there's always FeSO4 supplementation with vitamin c for absorption (for men, less is more). Further, the study noted that hemoglobin and iron values were generally higher in areas with mostly veggie intake, counter to the current way of thinking. I'm still pondering that. One also needs b12, which has to come by supplement or some animal source. Hardcore nonsupplementing vegans can become deficient.

You know I think the conversation would be very interesting and enlightening. So yes. There's leftovers and enough fresh tomato basil soup in the kitchen to repair 50 prostates. Also it tastes good.

Those last two references are much, much more convincing than the excerpt above; thanks for posting them. This is going to be a tricky issue for me because I'm not a stats person nor do I have the time to wade through all the associations looking for conclusions on my own. Key points I've taken out of this so far, and still wading through the book, is that while I do think that a nearly vegan diet would be very healthy, I don't think it's the ONLY way to be eating healthily, and that's great news for me because I don't want to eliminate a lot of the stuff I eat including my skim dairy, an occasional pizza, and some fish and chicken. I also am still waiting for REASONS why animal protein would cause cancer (and vegetable not) which would make the authors correlations that much more impressive, reasons why there isn't more journal level publications on this, and so on. I do think there is a bit took much dogma in some of these health nuts theories, for example, Ornish won't eat nuts because there's too much fat, but healthy nuts actually improve lipids and are prescribed by lipid specialists for patients with unhealthy cholesterol (fish oil, too). Another reason I dug into my ahi without guilt (safety guilt; I do feel bad that they're amazing predators of the sea with dwindling numbers ).

One thing to say about one critique of the study being observational only is that there ARE data on these diets being used in high risk people; they're in the book, and they're in the response links from Panther. People who ate these super restrictive, nothing bad, mostly veg and whole grain, limited fat and especially bad fat diets (only a third as much fat as a "low fat diet"s 30% from fat) were able to reverse their coronary artery disease. I don't think we tell our patients about these results enough when we counsel them on diet. We half heartedly ask them to do better, but I think it's disrespectful not to give them the full facts: they can die of heart disease and suffer along the way or make an extra turnaround. If they don't follow that's their business but some will.

You know I think the conversation would be very interesting and enlightening. So yes. There's leftovers and enough fresh tomato basil soup in the kitchen to repair 50 prostates. Also it tastes good.

I looooove my tomato soups. (homemade by the wife... I don't know... I've looked all over the stores, but she finds this stuff called "scratch" that she makes LOTS of things from! )

Quote:

Those last two references are much, much more convincing than the excerpt above; thanks for posting them. This is going to be a tricky issue for me because I'm not a stats person nor do I have the time to wade through all the associations looking for conclusions on my own. Key points I've taken out of this so far, and still wading through the book, is that while I do think that a nearly vegan diet would be very healthy, I don't think it's the ONLY way to be eating healthily, and that's great news for me because I don't want to eliminate a lot of the stuff I eat including my skim dairy, an occasional pizza, and some fish and chicken. I also am still waiting for REASONS why animal protein would cause cancer (and vegetable not) which would make the authors correlations that much more impressive, reasons why there isn't more journal level publications on this, and so on. I do think there is a bit took much dogma in some of these health nuts theories, for example, Ornish won't eat nuts because there's too much fat, but healthy nuts actually improve lipids and are prescribed by lipid specialists for patients with unhealthy cholesterol (fish oil, too). Another reason I dug into my ahi without guilt (safety guilt; I do feel bad that they're amazing predators of the sea with dwindling numbers ).

While the wife is big into chicken, I much prefer fish. She has allergies to shellfish, so when I get the chance sometimes (eating out, say) I'll have something that we don't do at home. She makes wonderful salmon and other fish dishes... (why do I salivate so much when reading & responding in this thread! ) I like my almonds, cashews, etc. too... Just have to be careful because they're really good and I could "pig out" on them if I wasn't watching it. (I prefer them raw, unsalted, all-natural...) We also eat lots of the dark green leafy stuff too. (Kale, Spinach, etc.) And because it seems that every damn dressing on the market has HFCS as one of the first or major ingredients (why?), my wife makes our dressings herself. Again, all natural ingredients, usually with some type of good olive oil & vinegar (I like the balsamic stuff & olive oil, but she gets different oils & vinegars after checking them out...) We had a little "disagreement" recently, because (bless her heart) she spends lots and lots of time cutting up all manner of fresh veggies to go in those huge salads and I (being the stubborn idiot that I am sometimes... ok, most of the time) said that I just wanted the leafy stuff & tomatoes without all the other veggies. She works so hard to treat me right. It's wonderful. We also have the occasional pizza which she & the little one love. (I might even have a piece even tho I know it's gonna make me sick from the cheese... Oh well... She makes the pizza with that "scratch" stuff too... it's really yummy and the crust isn't the typical "white bread dough" either.) She also makes a wonderful lasagna for me with limited meat, no cheese and lots of veggies in her homemade tomato sauce. (Are you drooling yet? I am!) Also, I admit that we do eat some lean red meat on occasion. It helps her iron levels and we get it from my brother-in-law out-of-state who raises cattle as his family has for generations, even tho he also works a full-time job! I know how they're raised and he has a good butcher who "divvies up" the cuts to everyone. One animal can feed 16 people for around a year and he gives away a good amount to the local food bank as well.

Quote:

One thing to say about one critique of the study being observational only is that there ARE data on these diets being used in high risk people; they're in the book, and they're in the response links from Panther. People who ate these super restrictive, nothing bad, mostly veg and whole grain, limited fat and especially bad fat diets (only a third as much fat as a "low fat diet"s 30% from fat) were able to reverse their coronary artery disease. I don't think we tell our patients about these results enough when we counsel them on diet. We half heartedly ask them to do better, but I think it's disrespectful not to give them the full facts: they can die of heart disease and suffer along the way or make an extra turnaround. If they don't follow that's their business but some will.

There is no arguing with the facts that the high-fat, high-processed foods being consumed in high quantities in the U.S. have contributed to disease and health issues for most of the (oblivious) population. Strongly urging people to reverse and/or control their health problems through a better diet (among other lifestyle changes I'm sure), is not only reasonable, but it's admirable. Personally, I know how hard it is to make extreme changes in various areas from diet to lifestyle, but once you start down the right path (for whatever reason) the rewards come to you. For me, one of the major things (beyond doing it for myself) is the selfish reason that I want to be here for my (now 3 year old) child as long as possible.

Quote:

More observations as I read along...

Can't wait... but we gotta quit talking about food so much. I'm gonna go wipe the drool off now!

Pizza dough recipe? I use one adapted from Tassajara. It's 5c flour (I do at least 2c whole wheat depending on pickiness of guests), 2 c liquid (1/2 water 1/2 milk usually), but the trick is starting. You make the liquid luke warm, and miz in a bit of sugar and 4 tsp yeast and let sit until foamy. This is the "sponge" and the flour goes in +/- some olive oil and is kneaded. I omit salt from my recipes unless essential (soy sauce, then the lower salt variety).

Dressings: agree completely. I will not eat any glop or similar glop like material from stores. I eat 99% of my salads dry, but will occasionally mix olive oli, balsamic vinegar, and dijon plus some crushed garlic and italian spices in roughly equal proportion or to taste.

You know, I don't expect everyone to go Ornish on the spot but I'm amazed when people don't take a hint. One patient had blood so creamy you could see it while drawing it out of a vein. His triglycerides were 2300 (where I consider 500 crazy high). He came in with pancreatitis from this. Yet he was convinced he was on a healthy diet, enough though, while not able eat, his TG's plummeted and his blood normalized from lack of abuse in just a few days. I told him he was driving into a wall at 90 mph and with little time to brake--he took one look at the lunch I packed and said I was insane.

Thanks for the pizza dough recipe. We've basically cut regular flour to a minimum and go for the whole grain stuff. I don't use sugar and have been getting the wife to cut that to a minimum too. Using salt to cook (beyond my use of soy sauce - low/no/reduced salt - with sashimi or homemade chinese ravioli) is strictly "verboten" in my house. In fact, I had to go out and BUY some salt for my mother-in-law because she "demanded" it, but that's OK... she's 82 and in better health than most 40 year old folks I know! My wife eats her salads basically dry too... Me... I've tried, but I'd prefer to just munch on some raw veggies if it's dry. As a "salad" (which it usually is), I need a little "something". It's almost a misnomer to call it "oil & vinegar" with the little bit of oil that's in it... But I like the "wetness" and my wife hasn't stopped kissing me because of the garlic! (tho she has mentioned it a few times... ) It's really hard to just go 180 degrees from what you're doing and sometimes the alternative might be easier, but then again, isn't "death" the "easy way out"?

IJ wrote:

One patient had blood so creamy you could see it while drawing it out of a vein. His triglycerides were 2300 (where I consider 500 crazy high). He came in with pancreatitis from this. Yet he was convinced he was on a healthy diet, enough though, while not able eat, his TG's plummeted and his blood normalized from lack of abuse in just a few days. I told him he was driving into a wall at 90 mph and with little time to brake--he took one look at the lunch I packed and said I was insane.

But... who's hospitalized?? Sigh.

HOLY SCHIT!!! I got upset when my triglycerides hit 170! I was thinking 300 and up was "crazy high"!! WTF!?!?! 90MPH? Sounds to me like he's got a rocket strapped to his backside and is going to hit after breaking the sound barrier!

A couple of years ago, when I got a bad infection, I was in the waiting room to see a doctor. There was this man in there (who I "thought" was "elderly"... found out he was only 62... I consider that really young still...)... anyway, he was in a wheelchair because he had lost a foot and calf a few years earlier from type2 diabetes which he refused to control. The reason he was back... he STILL wasn't controlling his blood glucose and STILL refused to change his diet and was on the verge of losing his OTHER leg! His wife had the attitude that he should be able to eat what he wanted because he was "a good man, who'd worked hard all his life and deserved it".

First I said to him, "It isn't really that big a deal to control your type2. You just need to eat right, get some exercise, and, if you need to, take some medicine until you get things under control." He got belligerent with me, made some excuses for not exercising (Was I blind! He'd lost a LEG! He was in a wheelchair!) and then told me to mind my own business. Well, he told me to mind my own business after I pointed out that there are people who do marathons in wheelchairs, so I don't consider that an excuse... So then I turned to his wife and asked her if she loved him why didn't she just feed him things that were better for him since he obviously wasn't going out and getting bad food on his own? She had excuses too and they didn't really like my "meddling".

As you know, the old saying goes: You can lead a horse to water...

Even tho I was going down the right path already, encounters like that just make me redouble my efforts to be healthy. Right now our issue surrounds working out. We both want to and need to... I realize why people have kids when they're younger because we are constantly going from dawn to dusk with our 3 year old. Then when we finally get him asleep at night, working out is about the last thing we have on our minds. We're both pretty exhausted and just spend that time with each other relaxing, talking about the day and various things, sharing each others' company... We've talked a number of times recently on "scheduling in" our workout, but then we just feel like collapsing when the time comes. Last night we talked about taking a different approach. Got up really early this morning, before the little one, and got ready to work out and... "Mommy! Daddy! Where are you?" It doesn't matter if we get up at 5 or 7, or how quiet we think we're being, the little one is up too... Same thing happens if we try after the little one's asleep... wakes up yelling for us every time. We've also tried working out "as a family", but that's not playing... it's boring and only lasts about 15 minutes at most before we're off chasing a scurrying child! (Still I wouldn't trade it for anything... ifyouknowhatimean... )

So we got less sleep this morning and still didn't get in the workout!

Even tho I was going down the right path already, encounters like that just make me redouble my efforts to be healthy. Right now our issue surrounds working out. We both want to and need to... I realize why people have kids when they're younger because we are constantly going from dawn to dusk with our 3 year old. Then when we finally get him asleep at night, working out is about the last thing we have on our minds. We're both pretty exhausted and just spend that time with each other relaxing, talking about the day and various things, sharing each others' company... We've talked a number of times recently on "scheduling in" our workout, but then we just feel like collapsing when the time comes. Last night we talked about taking a different approach. Got up really early this morning, before the little one, and got ready to work out and... "Mommy! Daddy! Where are you?" It doesn't matter if we get up at 5 or 7, or how quiet we think we're being, the little one is up too... Same thing happens if we try after the little one's asleep... wakes up yelling for us every time. We've also tried working out "as a family", but that's not playing... it's boring and only lasts about 15 minutes at most before we're off chasing a scurrying child! (Still I wouldn't trade it for anything... ifyouknowhatimean... )

So we got less sleep this morning and still didn't get in the workout!

The early years with the kids had to be the least-healthy of my life. And with four of them, yeah, it went on a while. Good news: it gets better. Now my kids can ride their bikes while I run, and better yet, snow is coming! My kids ski better than I do!

Thanks Jason. The problem is that my youngest is 3... and the other three children are 31 (with 3 kids), 24, & 22... (Truth is, the older ones are step-kids for me, but I still field calls and generally help as much as possible... the youngest hated me for a long time, but has finally realized that I'm not so bad. Helping out with things and being myself no matter what helped with that.) Now that doesn't really say what I'm trying to get at so here it is in a nutshell...

It's really tough when you're in your 50s with a 3 year old! We've GOT to figure out how to get our workouts in/going. (And working a full-time and a part-time job doesn't help either. Scuttlebutt is that my group on the full-time job is going to get laid-off, so I'm picking up as many extra hours on the part-time job as I can... got to bed last night... ummm... this morning at 4am and got awakened by the little one at 7:15am. Been going all day and I have to go into work tonight starting in a couple of hours until the wee hours tomorrow as well. That's tough when you're over 29. One of the reasons I chose the late shift for the second, part-time job is because the little one is in bed and I'm not missing any time there.)

Regardless, thanks for the encouragement. We'll get moving soon. The diet is pretty good, we just need to get more exercise in. Even tho the night work is mostly standing, it's not working out. The day gig is pretty sedentary and I don't really count the 2.5 mile lunchtime brisk walk as a workout, more of a destresser.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum